Morrow v. Target Dept Stores et al

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting 14 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 4 Complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/10/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

TROY ANTHONY MORROW,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-785 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET DEPT. STORES,

12
Defendant.

13
14
15
16

ORDER
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation. (Doc.
# 14). Pro se plaintiff Troy Anthony Marrow has filed an objection. (Doc. # 17).

17

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Target, a private company, and several of its employees

18

alleging they violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by falsely accusing him

19

of committing burglary and larceny. Plaintiff also attempts to assert Section 1983 claims against

20

LVMPD detective Anthony Archer and Deputy District Attorney Sandra Digiacomo in their official

21

capacities.

22
23

The magistrate’s report concludes that plaintiff has failed to state any claims entitling him
to relief, and recommends the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

24

The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

25

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

26

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

27

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

Although Marrow has filed an objection, it is merely a request to stay this action pending the

3

underlying criminal trial in state court. He has not specifically objected to a single of the

4

magistrate’s findings.

5

The court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

6

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Nevertheless, this court finds it

7

appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the

8

magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good

9

cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in full.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the report and

12
13
14
15

recommendation (doc. # 14) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (doc. # 4) be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED.
DATED February 10, 2014.

16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-